Lawsuit: Adjourned Commonwealth of Redmont v. V__D [2023] FCR 109

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Your Honor, the prosecution must request a 12 hour extension for the Closing Statement to this case due to the DLA being recently reshuffled. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

No extension is necessary.

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

Let's reflect of the facts of this case, that have been affirmed by both parties. On December 25th, the defendant un-fined themselves $5,000,000 from a government account, to which, the defendants own counsel has affirmed in their answer to the complaint that the defendant had no right to do so.

What the defense argues is whether the money was stolen illegally. This is a cut and dry case your honor, the defense can't in their right mind argue that someone can take money from an account that does not belong to them, an account that they have affirmed that the defendant did not have permission to take from and it be legal.

The prosecution has recommended the following action be taken.

1- The defendant pay back the entire $5,000,000 that was stolen from the government. The evidence that we have provided, shows that only $4,456,743.11 has been returned to the government. The defense has been unable to provide any counter to this argument, and has been able to provide no EVIDENCE to prove otherwise. THis very court affirms this fact with their confirmation of it on Jan. 6th 2024, when it posted " Currently with all of the evidence provided within the Injunction the amount sits at $4,456,743.11 this does not equal the $5 million at question." We hold firm our stance that the defendant shall be ordered to repay the remaining balance that was taken and not returned.

2- The defendant be convicted of corruption. Corruption is defined as "The act of using a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else." We have already established through the testimony of a professional witness that the sudden act of acquiring $5,000,000 IS an advantage that is inconsistent with the official duty of any government position. I have already expressed by extreme disappointment in our staff team for disobeying the court and ignoring the legal summons to answer the question, but lets look at the facts. There is only 1 way to have access to a government bank account, and that is to hold a position within the government which the defendant has had many times. Whether the permissions should have been removed but weren't, or there was some "bug" as the defense claims is irrelevant. The ONLY way one can get access to government funds is to hold a government position. You yourself your honor, have even acknowledged that the defendant had a government position in an earlier post by yourself on Dec. 28th, 2023 where you wrote "The Prosecution does not need to rebuttal as I will be rejecting the Motion to Dismiss given the powers used to provide the 5 million dollars were still used by a Government position and are shown across multiple business ventures."

Furthermore, the Court made this statement on January 6th. "Point four, whether working for the Government or not the money was still taken out by permissions provided by a position that only those who work for the Government would have. Yes, this could have been a glitch in which case it would be a staff matter primarily. Given that the Staff Team has been called as a Witness we will wait before assuming this. Until then we will continue as such assuming there was no glitch and they had the appropriate permissions to do so. The Defense has also not proven that the Defendant was not working for the Government at the time."

Your honor, the staff team testified that the defendant should not have had the permissions, and that it was an administrative error, they did NOT state that it was a "bug/glitch" as the defense has suggested. The defendant clearly still had permissions consistent with that of a government position and abused them, which meets the letter of the law as laid out previously.


3- We also seek the embezzlement charges be applied to the fullest extent possible. Per the Commercial Standards Act Embezzlement is defined as "The act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, for personal gain.” Again, the defense wants to argue that the defendant was not "entrusted" with the funds, but I ask, how else would the defendant get access to the bank account? I certainly don't have access to any government accounts. The answer is simple, the defendant WAS entrusted with the funds whenever he was given permissions to the account in question, and the fact that he was able to make the un-fine, shows that this trust was never revoked. Whether this was in error or not is irrelevant. I don't think that I need to prove that his actions were for personal gain, as the defendants actions made them have the largest balance of cash in the game. The defendant also met the requirements of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion, as they did convert the cash to several different banks and financial institutions.

4- The court has already affirmed that serial charges would be applicable in their response on Jan. 6th where it was stated "should the Court rule in favor of the Commonwealth and charge the Defense with 2 counts of Embezzlement then that would be the two counts required for the serial charge to be placed." We still seek that this be the case and serial charges be applied to both embezzlement and money laundering.

5- Money Laundering charges. Your honor, despite the defenses best attempts, it is clear and obvious that the defendant sough to distribute the funds as much as possible in order to "muddy the waters" as to where the funds went. Money Laundering is defined as "Any act to conceal funds illegally obtained, through commercial transactions, business deals, or any means otherwise." We have established that the funds were illegally obtained, and that the defendant distributed the funds through transactions and business deals. The defense argues that the government is able to track transactions and therefore the defendant did not try to "conceal" them. Your honor, keep in mind that this is a GAME. Of course transactions are logged, its a game. People are convicted of money laundering IRL all the time for putting illegally acquired money into bank accounts and company accounts where it does not belong, and that is exactly what has taken place here.

Your honor, as you can see all of these charges have merit, and are applicable to the case at hand. The defendant has stolen from the government, performed a corrupt act, embezzled and attempted to launder the money. The state has provided evidence coming from the defense and court itself that is irrefutable. We ask that you uphold the maximum sentence applicable to send a message to the citizens that and other governmental employees that these actions are NOT condoned by the Judiciary, and show that the iron fist of the law will come down on those that break it. There have already been "copycat" crimes committed and a strong showing and punishment from this court would go a long way towards deterring any future actions from taking place.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Thank you, the Defense now has 72 hours to file their Closing Statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

the amount sits at $4,456,743.11 this does not equal the $5 million at question.

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. Here is another quote from the prosecution to prove this is cut-and-dry perjury. All $5,000,000 was returned by admission of the prosecution.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Closing Statement

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing council, this is a case riddled with prosecutorial inaccuracy and inability to read the letter of the law. The prosecution uses the phrase "stealing" over and over again, yet stealing is not on the list of charges. The reason for this is stealing isn't illegal nor against the law. It is within staff jurisdiction and was handled by staff already, including the return of the $5,000,000 that was taken. I will be absolutely frank: the money was stolen (which is not a crime), and that is important when examining the legality of the charges imposed by the prosecution. The claims before us in this case boil down to one simple question: do the prosecution's half-baked and contrived criminal charges designed simply to "make v__d guilty of something" actually apply to the facts of this case? I am here to say they do not, and I will once more outline why.

The prosecution first charged the defendant with corruption. Corruption requires one to abuse their Government position. From the evidence provided in this case including the testimony of several individuals, v__d was not a Senator at the time and there is no evidence to prove he was the holder of any other government position granting /unfine permissions. The burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution, and they have significantly fell short of proving the elements of corruption to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. All they can prove is that money was taken, but it does not legally constitute corruption.

The prosecution next charged v__d with embezzlement. Stealing government funds and then using them is stealing; not embezzlement. Let us examine embezzlement closely: it requires that one is entrusted with funds then breaches that trust. v__d was NOT entrusted with any funds as a Senator or otherwise. We heard testimony from the former President of the Senate as well as the staff team that Senators are not actually entrusted to these funds nor should they have access. This absolutely invalidates embezzlement.

Finally, the defendant was charged with five counts of money laundering. Money laundering is the act of concealing funds that are illegally obtained. There are two pieces to examine here. First, the funds were not illegally obtained. Stealing is not a law, therefore the theft is not actually illegal and that alone invalidates any claims of money laundering. Any Court ruling suggesting otherwise is straight up legislating from the bench. Second, there must have been an act to conceal said funds. Simply putting them into bank accounts so they can be invested, gain interest, and otherwise be grown is not an act to conceal these funds. It is an act to grow funds, but not conceal. We heard testimony from Nexalin, the owner of the largest bank in Redmont. He testified that bank accounts are completely transparent with the Government and therefore don't serve to conceal funds. The defendant, a former bank owner, testified to the fact he was aware of this, so his bank deposits lacked mens rea of concealment. Any claims by the prosecution that v__d intended to hide funds lacks proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and are therefore invalid in criminal Court.

I would like to take the rest of the time to highlight some holes in the prosecution's closing statement:

1- The defendant pay back the entire $5,000,000 that was stolen from the government. The evidence that we have provided, shows that only $4,456,743.11 has been returned to the government. The defense has been unable to provide any counter to this argument, and has been able to provide no EVIDENCE to prove otherwise. THis very court affirms this fact with their confirmation of it on Jan. 6th 2024, when it posted " Currently with all of the evidence provided within the Injunction the amount sits at $4,456,743.11 this does not equal the $5 million at question." We hold firm our stance that the defendant shall be ordered to repay the remaining balance that was taken and not returned.

This is categorically false by the prosecution's own admission at the beginning of this case. The prosecution needs to get their story straight. Even then, it's only that: a story. The prosecution has the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt here. The defense does not need to provide a shred of evidence, even though we did via prosecutorial admission. The prosecution has no ammunition to make this claim in criminal Court.

but lets look at the facts. There is only 1 way to have access to a government bank account, and that is to hold a position within the government which the defendant has had many times. Whether the permissions should have been removed but weren't, or there was some "bug" as the defense claims is irrelevant. The ONLY way one can get access to government funds is to hold a government position.

This is an assumption, certainly not meeting the standard of proof required in this case. Holding a government position is one way to gain access, but the position v__d held should not have even had access. This indicates that it was a bug either way, and we have no insight where the bug came from, and whether or not it was associated with the Senator role or not. As there is a lack of proof, this claim crumbles as the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Per the Commercial Standards Act

This law was passed after the events behind this case occurred and therefore cannot be lawfully cited due to ex post facto.

Again, the defense wants to argue that the defendant was not "entrusted" with the funds, but I ask, how else would the defendant get access to the bank account? I certainly don't have access to any government accounts.

The argument is completely anecdotal and is a last grasp at a chance of victory where proof and concrete facts don't exist in the prosecution's case. The witnesses testified v__d was not legally entrusted with these funds, so embezzlement completely crumbles. Furthermore, per the definition, the prosecution must prove intent to convert the assets which was not done at all. "For the purpose of" in the definition is clearly a mens rea (intent) requirement, so this element must be satisfied for embezzlement charges to stick.

4- The court has already affirmed that serial charges would be applicable in their response on Jan. 6th where it was stated "should the Court rule in favor of the Commonwealth and charge the Defense with 2 counts of Embezzlement then that would be the two counts required for the serial charge to be placed." We still seek that this be the case and serial charges be applied to both embezzlement and money laundering.

The Court either misunderstood the request or was flat-out wrong here. The 3rd or greater charge is serial per the Standardized Criminal Code Act, not the second.

The defense argues that the government is able to track transactions and therefore the defendant did not try to "conceal" them. Your honor, keep in mind that this is a GAME. Of course transactions are logged, its a game. People are convicted of money laundering IRL all the time for putting illegally acquired money into bank accounts and company accounts where it does not belong, and that is exactly what has taken place here.

The prosecution makes no sense here. They argue that this is a game, then they argue we should be following real life precedent when our laws are different than real money laundering laws. The situations are not comparable either. Real life money laundering involves using aliases, fake IDs, and foreign countries to mask money. But this was not done here. All transactions are in v__d's name and is easily traced. There is nothing hidden here. So I thank the prosecution for proving my point further. Also again, the money was technically legally obtained and thus doesn't fall under the definition of money laundering.


Your honor, as you can see, none of these charges have merit. The defendant has stolen (legally) from the government, but has not legally committed corruption, embezzlement, or money laundering. The state has NOT provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. We ask that you deny any sentencing to send a message to the Commonwealth that the law is specific and must be fully satisfied, and show that the iron fist of the law works both ways. It is not the role of the Court to legislate from the bench, and thus the laws written by the Congress must be applied the way they were written. To do otherwise would be to deny my client a fair trial under the law. The prosecution has not proved any of their case beyond a reasonable doubt, so I ask the Court to acquit v__d on all charges. Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. Here is another quote from the prosecution to prove this is cut-and-dry perjury. All $5,000,000 was returned by admission of the prosecution.
View attachment 41185

The Prosecution has about 14 hours left to respond to this Objection.

Until then the Courts will not be in recess given this is an important Objection regarding arguments.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

The Prosecution has about 14 hours left to respond to this Objection.

Until then the Courts will not be in recess given this is an important Objection regarding arguments.

Response to Obejction

Your honor,

The quote that the defense is trying to claim perjury on me for is a direct quote from you.

I was merely referencing your previous comments AFTER Snowy’s response where on January 6th you stated “Currently with all of the evidence provided within the Injunction the amount sits at $4,456,743.11 this does not equal the $5 million at question. Given that unless evidence can be provided that eb was not included within this the evidence will remain.”

I cannot be charged with perjury for referencing someone else’s words, let alone a verdict made by this very court. You had ruled after Snowy testified that the evidence shows that not all of the funds were recovered and expressed that unless further evidence can be provided by the defense (which it was not throughout the remainder of the case) that this is the amount the Court recognizes was recovered.

We as the prosecution have, however, met the burden of proof showing that only $4,456,743.11 was the amount recovered by the government.

Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

I will be overruling the Objection given I have stated in the past within this very case regarding the amount and stating that it was not all given back. To rule in favor of this Objection would be going against statements and rulings I have made in this very case thus I cannot rule on this.

With that, the Court will now be in recess pending a Verdict.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Commonwealth of Redmont v. v__d [2023] FCR 109

I. PROSECUTION'S POSITION
1. The Defendant unfined them a total of 5 million dollars without any authorization.
3. Defendant abused their Government Positions to do so.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant states that the issue was a staff matter and was not in fact an abuse of permissions.
2. All 5 million dollars has been returned.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This is a very complex case with a lot of moving parts and both sides arguments falling apart at one section of the Case to another. One side is arguing to not allow someone in a position of power due to embezzlement and the other side is arguing to acquit them of this. Thus before I list out my reasoning for each I would like to explain where I stand on each charge:

• Reconciliate of all of the 5 million back to the Commonwealth, given that none of the money has been returned as of yet I am inclined to agree to this assuming that in Sentencing I rule on favor of Prosecution.
• Corruption, it has not been proven that there Defendant committed corruption. No proof has even been provided that they held a Government position in order to unfine themselves, simply words of it.
• Punitive damages, embezzlement would not apply here as given no evidence was provided that the Defendant did attempt to change those assets into other forms of assets.
• Double the punishment, this is simply too far. Charging 5 million dollars and them doubling is more than the current Government balance and would be an excessive punishment.
• Second punitive damages charge, my main issue is the per count of what. Per time embezzled? Per time walked? What metric was measured here. I am not ruling on past Embezzlements and solely on the alleged one currently happening within this Court room.

2. Now that we have gone over each charge, lets look at the facts. To put this simply, yes, there is evidence that none of the money has been returned. The only reason the money was returned currently was for the duration of this case for an Emergency Injunction. If this was not granted then the funds would still be in the hands of the Defendant as of now.

3. Did the Defendant commit corruption? The original argument is that the Defendant abused permissions granted as a Senator however given that no proof has been provided of the Defendant abusing those permissions as a Senator or even being a Senator at the time of the unfining, I cannot trust that the Defendant committed corruption as a Senator. As for other Government positions, the same may still apply. While yes a glitch could have happened, there is no proof of the Defendant abusing their position for their benefit.

4. This case is primarily set on whether a glitch occurred or not, while I would like to leave staff completely out of this, it is a key part of the case that must be taken into consideration. According to the testimony provided by the Staff Team yes, a bug was done in giving the Defendant permissions to unfine. While a bug is unfortunate and I do hope the Staff Team has fixed it, that does not mean the Defendant gets away scott free. The evidence is that the Defendant still did in fact unfine themselves the 5 million dollars which although allowed through a bug, does not prevent them from consequences. A Staff error does not free you from things you do with those permissions, otherwise the same could be applied with any role that Staff provides.

IV. SENTENCE
1. With that, I hereby rule in favor of the Prosecution however I will not be granting the full Prayer for Relief. I will only be granting Prayer one and that is that the entire 5 million Dollars be returned to the Commonwealth.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.